Closed eddelbuettel closed 5 years ago
Here is my reasoning:
1) It is a standalone release. See the branch -- it is
All good so far?
Now, I fear the branch will one day get deleted and lost as a stale branch. So I figure given that we actually also need all the changes enumerated above in master itself we may as well merge.
But I am open. If you'd rather redo all those (minimal) changes by hand a second time in master you can. The changes have to go in, so we may as well preserve the commit and work record, no?
But as I said, open to other suggestions..
Fair enough
CRAN found a few more stale bloomberglabs URLs (in README.md and the vignette) so I scanned more carefully and updated all (ie in configure too).
Ok, and just wiggled the changes away from a merge conflict.
I suggest we squash merge this once we have green light from CRAN. (If we don't squash merge we probably get a pretty ugly long branch from 0.3.8 to HEAD.)
And green light from Uwe so merging now.
Package still in waiting at CRAN and I am getting a little irritated. I sent daily follow-ups.
Anyway, now added to the ghrr drat and announced on r-sig-finance with BCC to @alfredkanzler and @johnlaing .
Version 0.3.10 is now at CRAN.
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/cranberries/2019/04/07#Rblpapi_0.3.10
I'm a bit confused here. This commit is a direct child of at 0.3.8, and skips over everything else that was done in the last year.
Perhaps we are thinking differently about what constitutes a minimal maintenance release. If this commit is intended to constitute a standalone release (which I would be ok with), then I think it should not be merged into master.